We dragged our feet in implenting procedures in hopes of FinCEN pulling the ruling. We weren't so lucky.
It has been an issue since we started. One of our CTR reps contacted FinCEN, this is what was said:

"I spoke with Jason at FinCEN and this was his reply:

Section B of the CTR - Mark Armored Car Service and input any information provided by the Armored Car Driver (i.e. First Name, Last Name, First Name only...etc). If no information is provided, then mark Armored Car Service and leave the remaining fields (section B - 15 thru 25) blank. Leaving the remaining fields blank is acceptable. In addition to leaving the fields blank, document why the fields were left blank should an examiner require explanation.

When the driver refuses to provide information needed for the CTR: Suggestions are to contact the armored car company and attempt to obtain the information from them and/or create a sign-in sheet with fields needed to complete the CTR for the driver to fill in (i.e . First/Last Name, Address, DOB, SSN, ID)

There is no "canned" response to provide to the drivers that are refusing to provide the information the bank would like for the CTR. Jason stressed that FinCEN is aware that drivers and the armored car companies often are not forthcoming with the information which is why it is acceptable to leave Section B - fields 15 thru 25 blank."

In addition, we have received push back from Loomis. I have a copy of the letter mentioned if anyone would like to see it.

"Due to confidential issues relating to privacy and confidentiality, Loomis does not provide personal employee information in the routine performance of service. Our position on this question is best represented within the attachment. This is a copy of the letter from the Independent Armored Car Operators Association to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network within the Department of the Treasury which protests the ruling in question."

Will this ever end?!?!?

OMG! We missed the second anniversary of the armored car ruling by almost a week!

Honestly, I really thought they would fix it, but the words to the company song "We're right" have not changed.

Company song - or Party Line? The lines are blurring....

I heard that it will probably be included in the next BSA exam manual update when it comes out again.

We were counting on you to keep us notified, Ken. No excuses!

That is something to look forward to!

Does anyone have a standard form letter or memo that they would be willing to share that they hand out to armored car personnel to educate them on this?

From my exposure so far, they simply don't care (any more than I would). If you feel it might help, give them a copy of the ruling.

I'm kind of afraid to ask this question, but if we have a customer that is a grocery store that has contracted with an armored car service to bring their deposits to the bank, could we exempt them?

I would say to do your due dilgence and if they qualify for exemption, exempt them.

I had almost the same situation and the Board preferred to exempt them rather than not having a federal form completed accurately. I waited the two months to make sure we were seeing the anticipated transactions and exempted them. Up front, the account officer made sure it wasn't an MSB or other high risk, just cash intensive. We risk rated them and determined we would exempt if the volume increased for the summer like anticipated.

I personally do not see the point of recording the SSN of the armored car courier - or any courier for that matter.

Really, what is the point?

The real focus should be on the account owner, not the $8 an hour guard who delivers the green.

I really wish FinCEN would pull their collective heads out of their arse and focus on what is important and not leave these fuzzy little details for a bank to get tripped up in an exam.

The point is: There is no point.

Noncompliance is pervasive, but I've yet to hear of a bank that's been criticized by its regulator on this issue. The functional regulatory agencies understand that it's simply a tar baby. They have no intention of attempting to enforce the unenforceable. (I'm glad...no point in all of the powers that be looking ridiculous at the same time.)

Somewhere back in all of those Poli Sci classes was a fundamental premise paraphrased as: Don't pass a law you can't enforce. It not only makes you look silly, it builds disprespect for the law in general.

In regards to this thread, has anyone read the instructions on the March 2011 revised 104 Form?
"Identification Requirements. All individuals (except a
employees of armored car services) conducting a reportable
transaction(s) for themselves or for another person, must be identified by means of an official document(s). Acceptable forms of identification includedriver’s license, military and military/dependentidentification cards, passport, state issued identification card, cedular card (foreign), non-resident alien identification cards, or any other identification document
or documents, which contain name and preferably address
and a photograph and are normally acceptable by financial
institutions as a means of identification when cashing checks
for persons other than established customers.

Yes. It's the same wording that appeared on the previous version.

So, we don't ID them?

You don't ID the ones the bank hires. You are supposed to ID those hired by the customer. They won't let you ID them, but that's what is supposed to happen.

If you read the threads here, you'll get a few ideas on how others handle it and you will need to determine what your bank will do.

Tuesday is the 4th anniversary of “the armored car ruling.” It was so far off the beam that the federal functional regulatory agencies simply ignored it. Even they understood it was a tar baby, one with which the banks could not comply and where official criticism would serve no purpose.

Apparently, it will be revised in FinCEN 2013 – R001 (as yet unpublished) to indicate that the bank is to insert the information on the armored car service, not the armored car service’s employee, on the CTR. (The rumor is so widely circulated that some of the armored car services are already insisting to banks that is all that they are currently required to do.) The funniest part of that “fix” is that Retread suggested it in post 1233075 above less than a month after the ruling was published. Maybe they should have just asked him to begin with.

Pointless…completely pointless.

Thanks Ken. If they had asked, that would not be the only thing I would suggest to them. Don't get me started. LOL